The Opelousas courier. [volume] (Opelousas, La.) 1852-1910, 1887-06-04

A SqUelclaer.
THE school, BOARD OF CADDo PARISH ON THE
RUTLAND MATTER.

THE SCHOOL BOARD OF cADDo PARISH ON THE
RUTLAND MATTER.
Capitolian- Advocate.
Verify, our Reform contemporaries are in
hard luck. Every gun they have fired off this
wear appears to have been one OF those old
fashioned flint lock blunderbusses that do
more damage to the shooter than to the tar
get They blazed away at the contract be-
tween the parish school boards aud lawyer
Rutland, and from the noise they made and
the smoke they raised, people unacquainted
with their ways no doubt thought Shey had
hit the bulls eye.
AS the target in this instance, happened to
include the parish school boards, which are
composed generally of gentlemen OF high
character aud intelligence, many OF whom be-
ing attorneys of note, it could hardly be ex-
pected that they would quietly submit to the
reflections that were made in some of the vio-
lent editorials of our Reform contemporaries.
Weary of these continued attacks, the
school board of Caddo parish, one of the fin
est in the State, published the following
statement in the Shreveport Times of the 24th
inst, which we commend to the careful peru
sal Of our readers, as a squelcher of this cam
paign roorbaek:
To the Times
In YOUR Issue of the Goth instant YOU say
''The so per cent Easton grab cannot be eX-
planned away. The hard fact remains that
the public sehuol back interest fund for the
benefit Of the children of the State has gone
10 "a private party ana this. too, not only with
the consent, but by the advice of the State
Superintendent of Education
In previous issues OF your paper you have
published much of similar tenor, editorials
and clippings from the State press Much
has likewise been said in explanation of this
matter Mr.. Steele, State Auditor, has given
"a very clear and well tempered explanation
of the tangle OF the records of the 10th Sec
ton sales as found in his office The New
Orleans States oil the 18th instant contains a
most exhaustive, aud we think satisfactory
exposition of the whole matter. The same
may be said of the elaborate and generally ac-
curate article in tho Shreveport Journal of
the 10Th inst. But not one word from any Of
these explanations do You publish in your
clippings
"grab," have started the very proper and ma
tmrai query, " who is to blame for this :" Va
rious answers have been given. Some hold
that Rutland, the attorney, is; some say
Treasurer Burke, some Auditor Steele, s"me
Superintendent Easton, and some the con
tracing school boards
Now we have this to say, and we ask you to
do us The justice to publish it in your paper,
that a simple statement should place beyond
debate ~ doubt, that none other than the
parish school boards are to blame. And We
whose names are signed hereto desire it to be
distinctly understood that we, as members of
the school board, are willing to assume the
full measure ot blame So far as the con-
tract we made with Rutland is concerned,
we we're apprised that by reason Of confusion
in the records of The Auditors Office, the
townships in the several parishes were not
properly credited with their quota OF the six
ieenth sectinn fnnd, We did not stop to IN
uuire who was to blame for this confusion
We know that inquiry necessitatcd an inves-
tigation of acts occurring before the war as
none of the school lands of Caddo parish had
been sold since the war. We took the fact
as We found it-that the records in the Au
ditor's office concerning the sale OF these
lands were in such state OF incOmpleteness
an confusion that proper aud full credits
could not be given 10 the townships aud par
ishes We recognized that these records
must ,,e corrected before the proper credits
could bs given. We did not see then, nor do
We see now, that it was the duty of Auditor
Steele, Treasurer Burke, Superintendent Eas-
ton. or any State officer To do this. We recog-
nized then, and fully know now, that the
work of correcting and compiling these re-
cords was II difficult and laborious task We
felt it TO be theduty OF eur board TO procure
for cur parish all of that fund the parish was
entitled TO, and to that end it was our duty
to furnish to the auditor, US far as we could,
a complete record of the sales in our parish.
To do so WAS a work beyond the reach and
compass of onr board, except by employing
some competent person to do the work. Mr..
Rutland, AN attorney, who by reason Ut his
employment in the litigation between Carroll
and Union parishes. had become familiar with
the work, offered his services as an attorney
to do this work for our board. His offer in
yolved simply business transaction. Our
board gave full consideration to bis offer, aud
! employed him to do Tor us what we could not
do ourselves, aud what we deemed it our duty
a ,k,,n h..frr
school board. No other person had aught to
do with it. Mr. Easton had nothing to do
! with it, We did it, and deserve, and are will
lug 10 bear all the blame. We were perfectly
free to reject Rutlaud's offer, and employ
some other attorney if we saw fit. We were
salisfieti with his terms; if he recovered moth
ing for Us, he got nu pay. His contingent fee
OF one half OF the back interest recovered we
did not deem unusual or extravagapt. We
had three attorneys, members of our board
all present and voting for the employment oi
Rutland; all familiar with the rate uf char
ges in their profession; not word frou
/ them that the fee charged was unusual We
have yet 10 learn that it was unusually large
Our board in regular meeting on the 25th oi
/ January, 1886, at which were present: s. Is
! McCutchen, president; T. F. Bell, secretary
j. H. Shepherd, j. III. Stephens. John ]. Ho
ran, Dr. w. r. wildwood and John ). Young
| passed a resolution authorizing its president
! anu secretary 10 cDuhEuCt WIN
ON the basis of his proposition that day sub
| mitted. The contract was signed and Mr
Rutland went to work In March following
| he sent to our treasurer $l739.lO, and on May
| l2, 1887, our treasurer received from him the
/ additional sum of $2427 making total ol
9203l s5 paid into onr treasury, the result %
I our contract with Rutland. 1t Is true thai
i nnder the contract he was to haye-and ht
7 did retain-an equal sum as his fee. But
this is u small part OF the benefit to this par
/ isl resulting from Mr.. Rutland's work. Be
fore his work of correcting the records thi!
parish had been receiving from that fund
/ $500 73 He has had placed to our credit al
increase of capital $2l ,875.3 annual interest
on which at per cent. amounts to SSo5o9
4 In other words, this parish will receive annn
ally from that fund for all time $1,000 NOR.
/ than it had been receiving before. This is |
/ continuing benefit. Mr.. Rutland asks nc
part of this. A simple calculation will SHOW
what this is worth to the school fund OF Ghi
parish In short, we made with Mr.. Rntlant
d cantraet, under which he has to this dat,
| received and paid into our treasury w ,05i o.
and increased our annual dividend $SI5.0S TO
/ the future. For this we have paid him a re-
! of 81, ,03l IS. We thought then and fhi'f
/ still, that We male good contract II w
erred, we are alone to blame. We are noi
/ willing TO remain silent and see onr tuni'
i saddied On others.
Very respectfully, S. b. McCntchen, JoLl
/ j. Horan, J. H. Stephens, j. s. foRng, \.
Bell j. II Shepherd
-----.------sS o ss.--------